Murphy et al. (2021) essentially argue that the practice of archive ethnography is a) changing alongside technological advances that have altered the ways in which field notes can be recorded, stored, managed, and analyzed and b) in need of a broader conversation about the potential for greater transparency in qualitative research. Aside from a capacity for replication or reanalysis that some may desire, shared data and analyses could also contribute to more fruitful collective reflexivity, as community engagement could potentially work to mitigate biases that researchers may carry with them in their work. The authors encourage digital recordings of research participants through audio and video and suggest that participants adjust quickly to the presence of a camera or recorder. They acknowledge that transparency can be concerning for purposes of anonymity but point to the difficulties, and problematic elements, of pursuing/providing anonymity for research participants. Overall, the authors conclude by suggesting that researchers can, at the very least, be transparent about why they have chosen the methods that they are choosing for purposes of anonymity or data protection.
